no consequences for Sixte-Henry, but also not the possibility to defend himself. Has he ever awoed?? It is probable that if there wasn't a trial it means there was no evidence. And a trial could also have taken to a favorable verdict for Sixte-Henry.

Note that the incident/massacre happened only one year after Franco's death, when Spain did not ahve an all to stable government. Some even say the government itself was involved in the shooting. It is clear however that Sixtus was there, and that he supported those who were shooting. Among his gang were people of the Triple A (Argentinian death squads).

From wiki:

'This attack was organized with the help of Carlos-Hugo's brother, Sixto Enrique de Borbón, who opposed the Carlist break with Franco (1965-67) and the leftist Titoist turn taken by Carlos-Hugo's movement.'.

At the moment a officer of the Triple A death squads is awaiting trial in Argentina after he was arrested in Spain for his role in the shootings of Montejurra and his atrocities in Argentina. Perhaps it is time to start enquiries about Sixtus role.

I always find this flauntingly pious prince a curious man, how he can relate his catholic beliefs to shooting people, organising attacks, cooperating with fascist murderers, supporting anti-semite cardinals, etc etc. I suppose he has a lot of forgiveness to ask for, which might explain this over-pious farce.

There is one point I can't understand:
Carlism was born first of all in opposition to the Pragmatic Sanction, that allowed women to inherit the Throne, and only in a second moment became a political party in opposition to every form of progressism. So my question is: how is it possible that Duke Xavier and now Duke Carlos Hugo became Carlist claimants to the Throne? Isn't it a contraddiction to Carlist principles?
I mean: Duke Xavier descended from Don Carlos through a female descendants of Don Carlos, so to accept him and his descendants as Carlist claimants, as well as Archduke Karl Pius of Austria and his successors, means to accept the Pragmatic Sanction and to allow women to have rights to the Throne.
But on the other side, I have the impression that the present Carlism has nothing but the name to share with the "old" and original Carlism...

Carlism was born first of all in opposition to the Pragmatic Sanction, that allowed women to inherit the Throne, So my question is: how is it possible that Duke Xavier and now Duke Carlos Hugo became Carlist claimants to the Throne? Isn't it a contraddiction to Carlist principles?
I mean: Duke Xavier descended from Don Carlos through a female descendants of Don Carlos, so to accept him and his descendants as Carlist claimants, means to accept the Pragmatic Sanction and to allow women to have rights to the Throne.

well.....its due to the fact that xavier was a direct male descendant of the first bourbon king of spain: philip v !!

in 1936 the direct male line of the carlists became extinct, with the death of don alfonso carlos. under normal circumstances the next head of the carlist claims would have been the the spanish king himself as he was a direct male descendant of the younger brother of don carlos!

prior to the death of alfonso carlos, the carlists rejected this reasoning, they did not wish to capitulate after a century of fighting. so the carlists genealogists (with his agreement), sought to find a more suitable candidate among the direct male descendants of king philip v. of course they discovered two family branches : that of neopolitian bourbons (whom they by passed btw) and the bourbon-parma's !!

the head of this family was none other than xavier, a nephew of two carlist queens and whose father (duke robert) was closely associated with the carlist king (carlos VII) during the second carlist war!

xavier was not born carlist (and nor was the spanish king). but he was carlist by inclination and before alfonso carlos died he proclaimed xavier "regent" in as so much stating that his wifes nephew was his successor to the carlist cause !

That's even worst! In order not to capitulate, they have betrayed one of their most important principles, skipping a lot of Princes who had more right then Xavier to be the heir of Fernando VII through his male line...
First of all, King Alfonso XIII and his male line descendants; then all the Bourbon-Two Sicilies Princes, and finally the Bourbon-Parma; but even in the Bourbon-Parmas, in 1936 three elder brothers of Xavier were alive, and one of them had two sons.
But Xavier was the eldest surviving son of Duke Roberto and Duchess Maria Antonia, whose eldest sister was the wife of Alfonso Carlos... I wonder if this fact has influenced the decision about the heir...

Well I think that carlists not only wanted the salic law but also were against the liberal ideas of queen Isabel II: so the conservatorism has always been one of their characteristic. Then they can justify Javier choice, by saying that all the male descendant of Felipe V who were first of him in the line of succession, by accepting the liberal monarchy, had been excluded from the line of succession.

Well, at least the Bourbon-Two Sicilies were known not to be very liberal...and one of them, Prince Carlo (the son of Infante Carlo) died during the Spanigh Civil War, fighting supporting the nationalists.
So why to skip them?

but even in the Bourbon-Parmas, in 1936 three elder brothers of Xavier were alive, and one of them had two sons.
But Xavier was the eldest surviving son of Duke Roberto and Duchess Maria Antonia, whose eldest sister was the wife of Alfonso Carlos... I wonder if this fact has influenced the decision about the heir...

yes i agree that the matter reeks of nepotism somewhat... and you are quite right, xavier did not become the head of the house until 1974 when he suceeded his nephew..... a son of one of his elder brothers.....
thus my source is incorrect when it states he was the head of the house in 1936 and my source was published in 1966 some eight years before the event !!....some authors eh !

Duke Xavier descended from Don Carlos through a female descendants of Don Carlos...

please could you enlighten us.....as to why you think that duke xavier is a direct descendant via a female, of don carlos.....i take it you mean the don carlos later the first carlist king (carlos v). as to my knowledge he is not !!

Duke Xavier was not descendant from Don Carlos (1788-1855), altough Xavier was very closely related to Don Carlos and his descendants:
Xavier's great-grandmother was the sister of Don Carlos;
Xavier's paternal aunt Margherita married the carlist claimant Carlos, Duke of Madrid (1848-1909)
Xavier's maternal aunt Maria das Neves married the carlist calimant Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime;
Xavier's maternal grandfather was the brother of Don Carlos' wife, Maria Francisca.

I don't know what I was thinking to when I wrote that, please accept my apology; btw, it remains that Xavier was not a descendant of Don Carlos, and therefore he was not entitled to inherit Don Alfonso Carlos' claims to the Spanish throne.

Xavier was very closely related to Don Carlos and his descendants:
Xavier's great-grandmother was the sister of Don Carlos;
Xavier's paternal aunt Margherita married the carlist claimant Carlos, Duke of Madrid (1848-1909)
Xavier's maternal aunt Maria das Neves married the carlist calimant Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime;
Xavier's maternal grandfather was the brother of Don Carlos' wife, Maria Francisca. btw, it remains that Xavier was not a descendant of Don Carlos, and therefore he was not entitled to inherit Don Alfonso Carlos' claims to the Spanish throne.

i quite agree.....but given the adove family links made him a most suitable candidate to be the next carlist head ...as i have mentioned adove, although he was not carlist born, he was a carlist by inclination and he a had burning enthusiasm for the task in hand, besides he was kept in readiness for years before his uncle died, he was proclaimed regent by his uncle remember !!. moreover... he was a direct male descendant of the first bourbon king of spain philip v.....!!

ps i very much hope that my posts may have helped to answer your question (post 23) :how is it possible that duke xavier (and his son) became the carlist claimants to the throne ? : as always i am willing to help !!

Well, if the criterion to determine the head of Carlism is the personal political inclination toward the Carlist principles, therefore Don Jaime shouldn't have been head of the Carlism due to his socialist ideals (he was known as the "red pretender").
But since Carlism supported the Salic Law, as Don Jaime knew his successor after Don Alfonso Carlos should have been King Alfonso XIII.
Now the dispute may be between Don Luis Alfonso de Bourbon and the present King Juan Carlos...

Well, if the criterion to determine the head of Carlism is the personal political inclination toward the Carlist principles, therefore Don Jaime shouldn't have been head of the Carlism due to his socialist ideals (he was known as the "red pretender").

a very good point MAfan !!.....but one must remember don jaime was carlist born and thereby the undisputed head of carlist line, regardless of his personal political inclinations !!. i agree that his socialist ideals was very unfortunate for the carlists !! but enough said of him....as it is slightly off topic.

although duke xavier was accepted by the majority of the carlists, as the new pretender in april 1937, his headship was disputed by some carlists, who invoked the semi-salic law, by the championing the archduke karl of austria / tuscany, a nephew of don jaime, while others favored the marques valldona (i can not tell you how he fits in the picture, as i do not know anthing more of him........could anyone enlighten me please), am not sure if they had carlist principals to boot !!

btw one must remember that duke xavier, although not very well known in spain.... was highly thought of in royal / aristocratic circles and the courts of europe (he had over twenty siblings, some of which married into other royal familes of europe), i guess this also greatly helped his way to becoming the head of the carlists......

(Moderator's note: this post has been copied from this thread in the Dutch forum)

Quote:

Originally Posted by amedea

For supporters of Carlos Hugo, Carlos Hugo decides, for supporters of Sixte-Henry, Sixte-Henry decides. If you think that Carlos Hugo is the one who decides, you are welcome, but you must accept that somebody think in a different way.

I wasn't too sure about Sixte-Henry's decision because if not Carlos and Jaime, who can be the heir?

Sixte is of no consequence to any matter regarding the Bourbon de Parme Family.Let that be absolutely clear for each and everyone.

I have made my points several times on Sixte,and if you wish to know this read the thread on the Bourbon Parma family in the Italian section.That man has no say in anything. It has nothing to do with thinking a different way,
he is absolutely of NO consequence,nor is any of his verbal diarhea.No-one gives a dime for that man.

HRHTheDukeofParma decides,and only him,as HE is the HeadoftheHouse,and that is the ONLY one whose words count.Solo.

His Royal Highness The Duke of Parma celebrates his 80th birthday today,thursday april 8th.
Many Happy returns!

Ok, Lucien, even if not necessary, you expressed again your feelings about S-H. Unforunately you did not add anything to what everybody know about the issue and, allow me to say it, you sound ridicolous in expressing your sympathies in such a dogmatic way. MAfan, I competely agree with you about the diversity between the Parma claim and the Carlist claim (I also wrote it before, in this thread). But what I was worrying about in the previous posts is not the Parma claim but the Carlist one. Javier and his descendants were chosen by the duke of Saint Jaime, so I was not sure about the other Bourbon-Parmas. It is also true that they were probably chosen because they were the nearer member in the Bourbon family to still support the Carlism, so the rule could be this one.

It is not a dogma Amedea,I don't write S-H to check...I mean,who's rediculous here.

I don't have sympathy for murderers,no,and I will express that in relation to S-H when
I see fit and I so please in the context of the next rediculous occasion this creature is brought up,amice.
Any time,so no-one forgets he did kill two people while he aimed at Irene and C-H.
His name nor link to him doesn't belong in this thread.We have the Italian department for that.

And on any Carlist claim,that is in the aforementioned thread as well as both C-H and Carlos have
nothing to do with that movement anymore.It's a Don Quichote sort of couleur locale anyway,
no-one takes them serious nor do they matter.It's an idee fix to think they're of any significance really.

They even have a page on Facebook where they revere Carlos-Hugo as the rightfull "Rey" of Spain....nah..
Funny page,you can look it up,I first thought it was about a bad opera,but no.

MAfan, I competely agree with you about the diversity between the Parma claim and the Carlist claim (I also wrote it before, in this thread). But what I was worrying about in the previous posts is not the Parma claim but the Carlist one. Javier and his descendants were chosen by the duke of Saint Jaime, so I was not sure about the other Bourbon-Parmas. It is also true that they were probably chosen because they were the nearer member in the Bourbon family to still support the Carlism, so the rule could be this one.

I'll be plain, I really don't care of the Carlist claims. The reason is quite simple, Carlism was born as a political movement against liberalism, and most of all against the 1830 Pragmatic Sanction and supporting Salic Law.
This means that the natural successor of the claims to the Spanish Throne, because this was the true and original matter, of Don Alfonso Carlos in 1936 was King Alfonso XIII, as senior male descendant of Don Carlos' younger brother.
Considering that, I never understood why Prince Xavier became head of Carlism, and personally I think Carlism has died in 1936 with Don Alfonso Carlos.
The Carlism of Xavier, Carlos Hugo and Sixte Henri imo has almost nothing to do with the original Carlism, like the present neofascist movements which have nothing to do with fascism but the name.

Ok, Lucien, even if not necessary, you expressed again your feelings about S-H. Unforunately you did not add anything to what everybody know about the issue and, allow me to say it, you sound ridicolous in expressing your sympathies in such a dogmatic way. MAfan, I competely agree with you about the diversity between the Parma claim and the Carlist claim (I also wrote it before, in this thread). But what I was worrying about in the previous posts is not the Parma claim but the Carlist one. Javier and his descendants were chosen by the duke of Saint Jaime, so I was not sure about the other Bourbon-Parmas. It is also true that they were probably chosen because they were the nearer member in the Bourbon family to still support the Carlism, so the rule could be this one.

And besides,"everybody know about the issue"?..I was the one that told this here,amice.Everybody reacted in disbelieve,read the thread and see.....expert....grin......